Find Nearby Plumbers In Orland Park, Illinois

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required. Review 1 (2023) heavily criticizes pricing practices, minimum charges, and markup strategy, rating 2/5. Review 2 (2021) praises efficiency, knowledge, speed, and fair pricing, rating 5/5. These reviews are contradictory on pricing and separated by nearly 2 years, making it impossible to establish reliable scoring. Professionalism dimension has no explicit mentions in either review.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Contradictory pricing assessments: Review 1 (2023) rates pricing as poor/exploitative; Review 2 (2021) rates pricing as fair — suggests possible service inconsistency or different customer expectations
• Review 2 is dated 2021 (3+ years old); Review 1 is from 2023 — recency gap may indicate service quality changes
• Review 1 contains no explicit mention of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude, appearance, politeness, responsiveness) — only pricing and workmanship concerns
• Review 2 lacks detail on specific professionalism behaviors; uses generic praise without concrete examples

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required). The contradictory pricing feedback and temporal gap between reviews further undermine confidence. Collect additional recent reviews before relying on any scoring.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with mentions of timely arrival, clean work, and hard effort even in difficult conditions such as Christmas Eve in freezing weather. Pricing is noted as not cheap in one review, though the other reviewer praised the contractor for honoring a reasonable estimate despite complications, suggesting fair but not budget pricing. Project completion is generally positive — jobs were finished and follow-through was evident — though one reviewer noted the contractor did not catch a client-directed error, which slightly tempers the completion score. Experience is reflected in problem-solving ability such as locating an outdoor access point by sound and having replacement equipment on hand, though the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2013–2014, making them over 10 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes these scores as they do not reflect current performance.
• No recent reviews are present, which is itself a potential concern — it is unclear whether the business is still active or maintaining the same quality standards.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over a decade old, making it highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor quality — treat all dimension scores with significant caution.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. The first review alleges extreme price gouging (a $6,000 quote for what the reviewer estimated as $2,000 of work), unprofessional conduct including employees appearing intoxicated, and predatory behavior toward vulnerable customers. The second review, while acknowledging an acceptable outcome on sinks, describes seriously deficient workmanship on the bathtub installation — including a large unrepaired drywall hole, crumbling tile, a badly angled faucet, and debris left throughout the home. Across both dimensions of professionalism and technical experience, the evidence is uniformly negative. With only two reviews and one dating back to 2008, confidence in these scores is limited, but the severity of the complaints warrants very low scores across all dimensions.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score. Results should be treated as highly preliminary.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review dates to February 2008 — over 16 years ago. This review may not reflect current business practices and should be weighted accordingly.
• EXTREME NEGATIVE SENTIMENT: Both reviews are 1–2 star ratings with specific, detailed complaints. There are zero positive reviews in this dataset, which may indicate a selection bias in the reviews provided or a genuinely poor service record.
• PREDATORY PRICING ALLEGATION: Review 1 explicitly alleges the company attempted to charge approximately 3x fair market value for the work, and specifically calls out targeting of senior citizens. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: Review 2 describes structural damage left unrepaired (drywall hole), faulty installation (angled faucet), material failure (crumbling tile), and hazardous debris left on-site (metal shavings, screw threads). These are concrete, specific quality failures.
• CONDUCT ALLEGATION: Review 1 alleges employees arrived smelling of marijuana and that the business owner behaved inappropriately during a dispute, escalating to a police call. These are serious professionalism red flags.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERNS: The two reviews are distinct in writing style, specificity, and date — no patterns suggesting fabrication were detected. The complaints appear genuine.

This score is based on only 2 reviews spanning 13+ years and must be considered highly unreliable as a statistical measure; however, the specific and serious nature of both complaints provides meaningful qualitative warning signals that prospective customers should take seriously.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. Additionally, these reviews are extremely polarized (1-star and 5-star) with no middle ground, and both are from 2017 (over 6 years old), making them stale and potentially unrepresentative of current service quality. Professionalism shows severe contradiction: one review explicitly documents no-show and non-responsiveness; the other praises professionalism. Project completion is similarly split. No pricing data was mentioned in either review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2017 (6+ years old) — no recent data available
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1-star and 5-star with no moderate reviews — suggests either inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• PROFESSIONALISM CONTRADICTION: Review 1 documents no-show, non-responsiveness, and ignored callbacks; Review 2 praises professionalism — indicates either major service inconsistency or different team members
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost, value, or pricing — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• INSUFFICIENT CONFIDENCE: All dimension scores based on 1-2 mentions only — treat with extreme caution

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small, the reviews are too old, and the extreme contradiction between them suggests either significant service variability or data quality concerns. Request recent reviews (past 12 months) and aim for at least 5-10 reviews before making any assessment.

This single review documents severe failures across professionalism, project completion, and pricing transparency. The contractor failed to respond consistently to communications, delayed proposal delivery by weeks, and ultimately abandoned a signed contract at the last minute, leaving the customer without service during a time-sensitive project window. While the contractor was initially recommended for competitive pricing, the review notes incomplete scope (water meter hookup excluded). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as this represents an insufficient data foundation for trustworthy scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from November 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current business operations or whether contractor is still active.
• BUSINESS VIABILITY QUESTION: Reviewer expresses uncertainty about whether contractor is still in operation and notes contractor was in his 70s at time of review, raising questions about current status.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE CASE: This represents one customer's experience. Cannot generalize from one review, even if detailed and credible.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). The single review is detailed and specific but represents only one customer experience; at least 3 reviews are required for meaningful scoring. Additionally, the review's age (2019) limits applicability to current business assessment.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review explicitly criticizes pricing as 'ASTRONOMICAL' compared to competitors for the same service, resulting in a very low pricing score. Professionalism is also scored poorly due to the reviewer describing staff behavior as involving 'secrecy' and 'unnecessary rudeness' from a named representative. No information was provided regarding project completion or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Overall, the available data paints a negative picture but is far too limited to draw broad conclusions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from February 2017, making it over 7 years old. Recency weighting is very low and current business practices may differ significantly.
• Pricing concern was reported secondhand (via a third-party company), not directly experienced by the reviewer — treat with slight caution.
• No reviews exist to detect fake review patterns, but the single review is highly negative and specific, suggesting authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's current quality or practices.